I sure wouldn’t let him near any children. Men who refer to ten-year-old children as “women” and advocate for them to carry the babies of their rapists are not men who should be in the vicinity of children. |
Or adults. What a terrible, terrible law. Shame on Ohio and all the other states adopting this horrendous law. |
My mother is Catholic and anti-abortion. She loved to talk about going to harass women at clinics. At some point I told we had to stop talking about this because, as she knew, I had had an abortion— of an ectopic pregnancy, and it was an awful, scary experience. And she said “well that’s not an abortion that counts”). And I reminder that my BFF had terminated one twin in a pregnancy because it has severe abnormalities that threatened the other twin, and ultimately my friend because the abnormality plus twins was high risk. And she said “that’s not an abortion that counts”. And I then reminded her my sister had 2 lovely kids, and wanted more, but both kids had been pre-mature (the second much more premature than the first) with due to polyhydramnious and eclampsia. And my sister had been advised not to have any more kids because her doctor told her, pretty bluntly, that a pregnancy would end with a dead baby or a dead mother, and likely both. And asked her what my sister should do if she got pregnant decide effective long term birth control. And then she just got mad. BTW: my aunt got pregnant at 16 and was sent a home. And here was my se talk from my mother: if you have sex before marriage, God will punish you by making you pregnant. To which I replied: okay, but why is he punishing the poor baby who would get an unprepared teen mom? Also did not go over well. Religious people seem to attach a moral judgement to the definition of abortion. If a “good” woman has an abortion for a sympathetic reason, then poof, it’s not an abortion. So, by extension, only “bad” abortions will be prohibited. “Good” abortions will still happen. And they can’t seen to grasp that an abortion is a specific medical procedure, and that every time that that procedure occurs, it’s an abortion. The cognitive dissonance is stunning. |
|
Jim Bopp has worked so hard to set this country back. It’s been his life’s work.
He is responsible for citizens United. Other stuff too. He’s the worst. But he’s 74 and we should all hope he dies soon. |
|
"Abortion" is a medical term, not a legal term.
"Assault," "aid and abet," "negligence," "battery," etc., are legal terms. Not "abortion." If you are using a medical term in the legal setting, it needs to be used in a medically accurate way. You don't get to redefine it willy-nilly without -- at a very minimum -- specifying precisely and clearly how it is to be used in the law in way that differs from the accepted medical definition. That's really sh!tty legal argumentation there. "You should know we only mean the kind we think are bad, not all of them!" |
Guess what? Just like his buddy the Ohio AG, the Indiana AG is also a liar. A TV news station was able to obtain the Indiana records and they show that the doctor was telling the truth. https://fox59.com/indiana-news/abortion-report-confirms-indiana-doctor-followed-law-after-ag-vowed-investigation/ So the chief law enforcement officers of 2 states - Ohio and Indiana - have proven themselves to be willing to lie to frame their political opponents. Interesting. |
I keep saying that Republicans are the dog that caught the car and I really hope this case is showing anyone still on the fence that it was never about "saving babies". I really hope the GOP goes down in flames in Nov.. But hoping isn't enough. I'm making calls to voters starting this weekend! |
You heard what you wanted to hear. She was very specific in saying the law would not apply to this child |
Not necessary. Would simply like the statement where he says the 10 year old should be forced to stay pregnant and give birth. |
But that is a lie. There is NO age limit in the law. |
They think about the women who rejected them having sex with men they find more attractive, and are driven absolutely insane with rage and jealousy. |
Post on previous page but here you go. "Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday." https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843 |
He's the lawyer who wrote it. That's his opinion. Could the actual legislators, the officials, make an exception in this case? According to testimony, the law would not apply to her so apparently, yes. |
In fact, if you go further down in this story, the law also says this: "While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”" |
And even further on: "“Unless her life was at danger, there is no exception for rape,” Bopp said. “The bill does propose exceptions for rape and incest, in my model, because that is a pro-life position, but it’s not our ideal position. We don’t think, as heartwrenching as those circumstances are, we don’t think we should devalue the life of the baby because of the sins of the father.”" So the bill does propose those exceptions, but Bopp's OPINION is he doesn't think it should ideally. His opinion and desires are just that. I don't agree with him and apparently, he doesn't get his way. I honestly don't understand why people here can't read a story critically. The only conclusion I can come to is that it simply doesn't support the argument you want. |